[simula67]

My apologies, but I find your comment somewhat confusing.

> In Japan lay judges (citizens) were re-introduced into trials in order to offer defendants a possibly more sympathetic audience. In Japan, due to quite a few idiosyncrasies[1], prosecutors achieve upwards of 95% conviction rates.

> often no attorneys during interrogation, forced confessions, detentions without charges, taking up only choice cases, declaring "accidents" rather than pursuing murder, etc...

How are any of these problems solved by introducing lay judges ? Aren't they attacking the wrong part of the problem ?

> An imperfect jury system is likely better, in criminal cases, than having cozy professionals decide cases.

I find it hard to believe that professionals would be more incapable of sympathy.

[mc32]

Unfortunately I was talking about two things simultaneously without making the connection.

One, with professional juries (judges) a high conviction rate is achieved in Japan, possibly contributed to by the cozy relationship between attorneys and judges as well as some deficiencies in how its determined when to take a case in addition to laws and in addition to police misconduct.

One of the reasons (there were others, such as decreasing backlog) for the introduction of lay judges ("peer" jurors) was because it's thought they could prove more sympathetic to defendants.

[ptaipale]

> How are any of these problems solved by introducing lay judges ?

Haven't studied this, but I would expect that it's in order to break the cozy (word used above) inner-circle relationship of professional lawyers who work in courts, switching roles between judge and prosecutor. The problem being isolation of the legal profession from "lay people".